Ellie Kershaw, (Tackling Poverty Programme
Delivery Officer) presented the report seeking approval of the
continuation of the school uniform grant and authority to authorise
the Corporate Director of Resources to approve future grants within
budget. She provided an overview of the policy including the
payment arrangements.

The Chair of the Grants Scrutiny Sub –
Committee reported feedback on their consideration of the report.
The Sub – Committee welcomed the proposals. The GSSC sought
and received further information regarding, amongst other matters:
the slight decrease in applications, the use of the small
underspend and the approach to dealing with oversubscription. The
GSSC were
satisfied with the answers and endorsed the report.

Councillor Ronald then invited GDSC Members to
comment on the report. The GDSC also asked questions and received
reassurances about the decrease in claims (as detailed in the
report), due to changes in the number of pupils eligible for the
support.

RESOLVED

1. That the
provision of school clothing grants in 2019/20 within the budget
specified in this report be approved;

2. That the
Corporate Director for Resources be authorised to approve future
grants, subject to budget restrictions

Mark Baigent, (Interim Divisional Director,
Housing and Regeneration) presented the report. This report sought
approval for the allocation of government funding to Capital
Letters - a LBTH led homelessness prevention hub, comprising a
number of other London Borough, to deliver initiatives.

The Committee noted an overview of the project
including: the establishment of a company, the staff recruitment
plans, the funding per performance measures and the Memorandum of
Understanding, setting out project milestones.

The Chair of the Grants Scrutiny Sub –
Committee reported feedback on their consideration of the report.
The Sub – Committee were supportive of the proposals given
the pressures on services. They sought and received assurances
regarding the staffing arrangements amongst other issues.

Councillor Ronald then invited GDSC Members to
comment on the report. The GDSC also welcomed the programme and
that it was LBTH led. They thanked Officers for working hard to put
this in place.

RESOLVED:

1. That the
award of grant funding of up to £37.8m be authorised to
Capital Letters (London) Ltd through a Sub-Grant Agreement; drawing
on the grant from the MHCLG awarded to Tower Hamlets, Lead Borough
of the Pan-London Homelessness Prevention Procurement Hub
programme.

2. That the Corporate Director,
Place be authorised to enter into a grant agreement and make
decisions relating to resolution 1 above.

Robert Mee (Interim Voluntary & Community
Sector Team Manager) presented the report regarding MSG project
performance during the period September to December 2018.

The Sub – Committee noted the update on
the following three red rated projects:

•Cubitt Town Bangladeshi Cultural
Association

•Stifford Centre – Community
Languages Service

•
Toynbee Hall – Wellbeing in Tower Hamlets

The Sub – Committee also noted key
achievements set out in the appendix. Members were also advised
that two projects in Appendix 1 of the performance report (on page
65 of the agenda pack) were stated to be green in the text but the
colour on the report was Red. It was clarified that the text was
correct and both projects were rated green.

Regarding the Toynbee Hall, it was noted that
Officers had engaged with them in respect of the issues. Based on
the initial findings of the assessment, it was anticipated they
should progress to an amber rating due to improvements.

The Chair of the Grants Scrutiny Sub –
Committee reported feedback on their consideration of the report.
The Sub – Committee noted the issues (reported above) about
the colour coding. They also asked questions and were satisfied
with the responses received regarding progress with addressing the
issues in respect of the red rated projects. The also discussed the involvement of the TH CVS
in the monitoring process.

Councillor Ronald then invited GDSC Members to
comment on the report.

The GDSC noted the issues around the
submission of safeguarding certificates (in respect of the
Cubitt Town Bangladeshi Cultural
Association and the Stifford Centre).
The GDSC were advised that the issues had been
addressed. Therefore, it was
anticipated that the performance ratings for these projects should
now move up into a green rating, since this was the only issue.
Premises updates would continue to be provided in the monitoring
reports.

Regarding the Toynbee Hall, Mr Mee provided a
further progress report. Officers were
still in the process of reviewing the information regarding a rise
in workshops and the attendance figures. Depending on the extent of
the improvements, it was possible that the project could move to an
amber rating.

RESOLVED:

1. That the
performance of the Mainstream Grants (MSG) programme be noted as
set out in 3.3 - 3.6 and the premises update 3.7 – 3.8 of the
report.

Robert Mee (Interim Voluntary & Community
Sector Team Manager) presented the report. He highlighted the three
main proposed changes to the eligibility criteria in respect
of:

•the need for organisations based in
Council buildings to have appropriate premises agreements.

•recipients indebted to the Council.

•
allowing groups in receipt of Council funding in the previous two
years to be able to be able to receive emergency funding

In addition a new time limited revision to the
criteria around the change from Mainstream Grants (MSG) to the
Local Community Fund (LCF) was presented.

He outlined the key features of the proposed
time limited
criteria, to support organisations experiencing issues
arising from the end of the MSG. He outlined the type of issues
which would be taken into account in considering if an organisation
met the criteria for this funding.

The Chair of the Grants Scrutiny Sub –
Committee reported feedback on their consideration of the report.
The Sub – Committee welcomed the changes in principle and
sought assurances regarding the adequacy of the review period

The GSSC also discussed the impact of the move
to the new LCF on the emergency fund given the possibility that it
might lead to an increase in applications for funding. The
Committee were mindful of the pressures this might place on the
fund and the opportunity costs of the proposals in terms of leaving
a shortage of funding for other groups facing ‘life and
limb’ emergency situations. The Sub – Committee
endorsed the report.

Councillor Ronald then invited GDSC Members to
comment on the report. In response to questions, it was confirmed
that the applications for the transitional funding would be
considered on their own merit against the funding criteria. The
sort of issues that might qualify an organisation for the funding
included serious viability issues related to the move to the
LCF.

Regarding the process for prioritising
applications, given the budget restraints, it was noted that
Officers were working with the organisations such as the TH CVS to
provide support to unsuccessful LCF applicants and also identify
alternative funding options. The nature
of the type of support that would be offered was noted. Officers
were mindful of the issues around increasing the amount of money in
the emergency budget given this may change the nature of the
funding. It was felt important to ensure it remained a source of
emergency funding. The GDSC supported this point regarding the need
for the budget to be reserved for emergencies rather than become
another source of funding.

RESOLVED:

1. That the
revised criteria for the Emergency Funding be agreed as detailed in
paragraphs 3.5 to 3.12 and appendix A of this Report.

David Freeman, (Voluntary and Community Sector
(VCS) Strategy Manager, presented the update on the Local Community
Fund and the Small Grants Fund.

The Committee noted an overview of a number of
issues (as set out on the presentation slides circulated in a
supplementary agenda) regarding: the bidding and assessment
process, the engagement with the third sector, and details of the
ongoing activities to help support applicants, apply for the
funding with a focus on MSG supported groups. This included the
provision of support sessions including TH CVS sessions, held at
various different times of the day and support with preparing bids.
The Committee were also advised of the number of applications
received so far.

Turning to small grants fund, there would be
five funding themes aims at supporting groups carrying out
innovative work and small projects amongst other things. The
Committee noted the application timescale and that there would be
several funding rounds a year.
Regarding the external contractor, the Committee noted details of
the proposed arrangements and the contact details.

It was noted that Council’s
Communications Team would carry out a lot of engagement on the
application process.

The Chair of the Grants Scrutiny Sub –
Committee reported feedback on its consideration of the report. The
Sub -
Committee sought clarity and received information about plans to
outsource the administration of the fund and the risk of a
duplication with Council work. Clarity was also sought about the
role of the Council’s scrutiny process in overseeing the new
fund, particularly whether the Chief Executive’s decisions on
the applications could be called in.

In response, it was clarified that the Chief
Executive decisions would go to the Cabinet for endorsement. As a
result, the scrutiny committee would have the opportunity to
consider and comment on the decisions with a view to ensuring that
the process had been properly applied and the decisions were
robust.

Councillor Ronald then invited GDSC Members to
comment on the report. The GDSC noted the desire for scrutiny to
continue to have a role in the process and that the Council were
working to develop a rigorous and transparent decision making
process. Regarding the role of the East
End Community Foundation in assessing the applications, it was
noted that they had in place a well
established process for assessing small grants and it was
envisaged they would apply a similar approach. In response to
further questions, Members also noted further information about the
number of applications received to date.